41–50 of 73 posts
Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great quote, but that's just not true. I suggest you research modern logging practices.
Since you're the expert (contesting the named expert cited in the article), why don't you point us in the right direction? Googling "modern logging practices" brings up Wikipedia, some industry websites, and a variety of random articles.
How realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops? For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes? Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and havi…
Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
I heard this decades ago, and heard that practices were changing, albeit with problems where people have towns/homes up against forest. I even think I recall a big fire a few years ago that was a controlled burn that broke free. Is the issue truly that practices still havent changed?
Note that the situation in California is VERY different from most of the US. In California (this probably only applies to parts of California - it is a big state) the trees are high oil and very flammable. When there is a fire after a drought (which is common) it will be big and hot. The only way to deal with it is to not build near these forests and let them burn naturally.
In fact, looking at this study utilizing GIS data - it looks to me like the SE US actually contains some of the largest concentrations of fuel / fire risk:
https://eos.org/articles/assessing-u-s-fire-risks-using-soil...
Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.
It ain't guaranteed, but take 1 billion of those drops, a mix of good conditions (no rain, just droplets from morning dew in otherwise dry place) and things will eventually happen naturally.
I've seen it caught on camera by BBC team in some african documentary, a single droplet around bird's nest causing significant fire.
Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.
The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lightning-strik...
The existence of adaptations to fire in the Californian ecology is good evidence for it being a significant factor (and if these were in response to human activity, then why not elsewhere?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.
I am not sure you can say any region "never" gets anything. But even so, the region seems perfect for spontaneous combustion.
Forests don't spontaneous combust. I don't believe there was any forest fire proven to have started via spontaneous combustion.